Systematically Dismantling Atheism

[Losty]

Oh yay you're still here

[Brian37]

It's always gratifying when someone comes along and tells us what we believe. We'd never have known if you hadn't been here for us. How can we ever repay you?

Christians have been defining that word ever since the dark ages. What they really want to say is "I don't like it when other people dont buy my pet god claim".

[Surgenator]

It's laughably ridiculous now. The resemblance between an atom and a solar system is so superficial that it's very close to being entirely false. Clue: atoms don't really look like that, it's a gross oversimplification for the benefit of minds still in grade school.

http://physics.aps.org/story/v13/st15
Focus:"A tiny solar system after all"

The researchers used laser pulses to produce a wave packet that contained the outer electron of a lithium atom and traveled around the nucleus on an elongated elliptical orbit. They then applied microwaves whose electric field pointed in the same direction as the orbit stretched. The microwaves’ frequency also matched the rate at which the wave packet went around. The microwaves gently pushed on the packet, slowing down its front edge, speeding up its rear, and preventing it from spreading.

Bolded for emphasis. This article talks about how they successfully forced an electron to have an elliptical orbit.

http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/01/sc...s_mode.php
Experiment shows how giant atoms act just like tiny solar systems

I remember learning about atoms for the first time and picturing them exactly like little solar systems, with electrons orbiting nuclei like planets orbiting a star. As I learned more, though, that simplistic picture got shredded by crazy wave function orbitals, and atoms started to look like abstract art. So, I'm loving the fact that you can dig down even deeper, and with some tweaking, atoms really can operate exactly like solar systems after all.

Bolded for emphasis. Again, they forced the electron to behave like a planet.

Your own sources are not supporting your claim. Go read an undergraduate quantum mechanics book if you want to understand electron orbits. If you are good at math, I recommend this one.

If one universe exists, many or endless other universe all with different attributes/constants can also logically exist, and this is based solely on inference.

The vast majority of things that can logically exist, don't.

Name them.

Bigfoot, a super model that loves me, my son, a nucleur powered car, Jedi, etc... Do I really need to go on.

If something can logically exist, but does not exist, you must be able to empirically prove these logically possible things do not exist. This means you must have testable evidence for the "vast majority" of things that can logically exist, and also have evidence that they don't actually exist, for your statement to be valid

It is logically possible that I can have a son. I don't have a son. Therefore, logical possibility is not suffecient to prove existence.

[pocaracas]

First, I don't need evidence for my claim for it to be rational.

Therefore, no evidence is needed for the contrary claim to be rational.

That statement is not rational. If one of X is proven to exist, its irrational to claim no more than one of X can exist. And if varying degrees of X do exist, its irrational to claim even more variations of X can not also exist.

hmm, interesting...what happens if I make X= god?
it seems it makes any monotheistic claims irrational, huh?
or is there some special pleading that exempts god from irrationality?

If one of something exists -intelligent life for example- you must explain a cause to prevent other intelligent life from existing. And if varying degrees of intelligent life are proven to exist -which they are-, you must explain the cause why higher degrees of intelligence must cease at a particular arbitrarily defined level

yep, I see several degrees of gods arising there...

Rejecting a wide variation of logically possible life forms before they are observable it not logical. So your position is, you must either accept the proposition superior intellects can logically exist, or reject the proposition superior intellects can logically exist. And since you clearly do not reject the proposition, you are then forced to explain the cause for the universal I.Q stagnation so that it can never reach a God-like status and contradict your atheism.

there is, in fact,a hard cap on the maximum I.Q. available to any being: brain capacity.
Your god-like I.Q. requires an infinite brain capacity. If that existed, then we'd be within that brain...The matrix?

To qualify as God only means a life form must be capable of creating the universe with the proprieties to sustain life, and create all life in the universe. If that being does exists, he is in fact God under the proper definition.

But also according to my religion, there were Angels that also did not think their creator was worthy to be worshiped or to be obeyed, so their creator holds the option to negate their eternal life, just as a PC programer can delete his program, God can permanently delete you for not obeying

If the guy's the programmer, then why did he give me atheist stats?

[Exian]

---

That statement is not rational. If one of X is proven to exist, its irrational to claim no more than one of X can exist. And if varying degrees of X do exist, its irrational to claim even more variations of X can not also exist.

hmm, interesting...what happens if I make X= god?
it seems it makes any monotheistic claims irrational, huh?
or is there some special pleading that exempts god from irrationality?

If one of something exists -intelligent life for example- you must explain a cause to prevent other intelligent life from existing. And if varying degrees of intelligent life are proven to exist -which they are-, you must explain the cause why higher degrees of intelligence must cease at a particular arbitrarily defined level

yep, I see several degrees of gods arising there...

Rejecting a wide variation of logically possible life forms before they are observable it not logical. So your position is, you must either accept the proposition superior intellects can logically exist, or reject the proposition superior intellects can logically exist. And since you clearly do not reject the proposition, you are then forced to explain the cause for the universal I.Q stagnation so that it can never reach a God-like status and contradict your atheism.

there is, in fact,a hard cap on the maximum I.Q. available to any being: brain capacity.
Your god-like I.Q. requires an infinite brain capacity. If that existed, then we'd be within that brain...The matrix?

To qualify as God only means a life form must be capable of creating the universe with the proprieties to sustain life, and create all life in the universe. If that being does exists, he is in fact God under the proper definition.

But also according to my religion, there were Angels that also did not think their creator was worthy to be worshiped or to be obeyed, so their creator holds the option to negate their eternal life, just as a PC programer can delete his program, God can permanently delete you for not obeying

If the guy's the programmer, then why did he give me atheist stats?

---

This is getting a bit ridiculous for my taste (who am I kidding, I love it), but if we are contained within pocaracas' infinite god-like mind, then the mind is an emergent quality of, among other things, us, and it is we who should demand worship from it. At the very least, we should take cues the god-like mind, and demand worship and sacrifice from our neurons, lest we damn them to hell.

[StuW]

odds+eternity=absolute certainty

But in an eternal timeframe odds are irrelevant as for any event to happen an eternity must happen pre and post, ergo the event never does happen.

[pocaracas]

pocaracas' infinite god-like mind,.

Why, thank you for the compliment, but I wouldn't describe my mind as infinite, nor god-like...

[The Grand Nudger]

---

If one of something exists -intelligent life for example- you must explain a cause to prevent other intelligent life from existing. And if varying degrees of intelligent life are proven to exist -which they are-, you must explain the cause why higher degrees of intelligence must cease at a particular arbitrarily defined level

Rejecting a wide variation of logically possible life forms before they are observable it not logical. So your position is, you must either accept the proposition superior intellects can logically exist, or reject the proposition superior intellects can logically exist. And since you clearly do not reject the proposition, you are then forced to explain the cause for the universal I.Q stagnation so that it can never reach a God-like status and contradict your atheism.

And the only person on this board that has even attempted to do this is Jenny A, and her argument (laws of physics) completely failed to prove a God-like I.Q. is logically impossible

Claiming there is no evidence for this God-like I.Q. it is identical to claiming there is no evidence for any intellectual superior life. You accept the alien possibility by faith through inference, yet you irrationally reject a God-like I.Q. on no other basis other than faith it does not exist/lack of faith it does exist.

---

That there is no evidence (of intellectually superior life) is a simple fact. The criteria are convenient for us, they seem almost designed to exclude us in a satisfying way - to set us apart. But that's ultimately irrelevant. Atheism is not a position on the existence of aliens or intelligence (notice that the atheists who have responded to you run the spectrum on these propositions - there need be no agreement, there is no "atheist position" on this). Whether or not one puts any stock into supersmart alien claims simply -cannot- contradict atheism, understand?

If you'd like to continue the analogy to intelligent extraterrestrial species be my guest. When you're done arguing that god is/could be a very smart alien we still won't have any evidence, and we'll be short a god or two as well. So, no change.

But also according to my religion, there were Angels that also did not think their creator was worthy to be worshiped or to be obeyed, so their creator holds the option to negate their eternal life, just as a PC programer can delete his program, God can permanently delete you for not obeying

Yeah, yeah, chattel - heard it before. Disgusting. I hope you hold human beings (yourself included) to a higher standard than you hold your god. I think it's ironic that within the walls of religious idiocy this story is so vastly unconsidered. These "angels" - who arguably had more contact with your god than human beings ( I say arguably, because in all honesty "they" had precisely the same amount of contact as human beings have had -zip, zilch, nada-), have decided that said god simply was not worthy of worship or obedience (and by all descriptions of god I've been privy to I would concur). If there was any doubt, an invocation of a gods right to "delete" them on these grounds would seal the deal in their favor. You make a very good argument against fealty to an existent god, so gratz on that count.

[Aoi Magi]

@IDScience
I am confused as to what your definition of 'God' is? If it is a super-intelligent life form, what are it's attributes? And more importantly, what is the basis for speculating about it?

You see, the ideas that we consider as plausible aren't just random logical possibilities, rather these ideas are the best plausible explanations we have so far, which explains something about the universe, for which we do have evidence. So these ideas have some basis in reality, and evidence for their plausibility. For example, the multidimensional theory is accepted because it is a necessary part of the string theory. Also we don't accept that just because there is one 1d,2d,3d, there should be a nd, rather the currently accepted idea is either 10d or 11d max. These ideas had to prove their plausibility before the scientific community could consider them and that proof has to come from those who presents these ideas.

Currently your god concept is not considered because, it is not a clearly defined idea and it's plausibility has not been shown.




Next you need to understand that the scientific way of finding the truth by the process elimination is the correct way. Let's say you have a plate full of visually identical candies, now you taste one of them and it is sour. Can you conclude all of them are sour? they are identical visually, so at this point all of them being sour is a logical possibility, but there are other plausible possibilities as well like that one candy was an exception, or each candy is unique. So unless you eliminate these, you cannot be certain of the truth.

[Whateverist]

Are you sure you know science, IDKscience? Cuz you sure don't seem to know much of anything else.